Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Katody Matrass]

You'll be walking for a very long time if you're planning to go to Purgia.

It's funny how judgment on such a neutral issue can be skewed by people's preconceptions. In this thread we got estimates of up to 20 minutes. On the "other site" a prominent expert declared that the distance can be walked in under 2 minutes.

Measuring it in google gives a distance of 430m.
So for a standard 5km/h walking speed a 5 minutes is a good estimate (excluding all the preparations, putting on shoes and coats, locking the doors etc.)

20 minutes for walking only, would be a veeeery relaxed stroll.
On the other side walking it in under 2 minutes would be probably possible for a world class competitive walker. An average person would have to run.

 

[isotope1]

dna on the rock?

Was the rock in F's room ever swiped for dna? Handling such an item must surely have left evidence behind by scraping off skin cells, and even more so if it had actually been tossed. I don't remember anything on this point.

 

[bucketoftea]

Whenever I see terms like "millimetre accuracy" applied to the work of Rinaldi, it makes me smile wryly, as I immediately think of his inability to even count the number of concentric circles in the sole print of an athletics shoe, let alone measure them with "millimetre accuracy".....

I'm familiar with your linked references, but not the cranky one.

I understand why the court was persuaded by Rinaldi. Superimposing the bathmat print over the sample print taken from Sollecito to demonstrate visually the match compared to the same demonstration with Guede's known sample print which showed that it didn't match is very powerful. The matching measurements between the bathmat print and Sollecito's own, and the no-match with Guede's served to confirm what jurors could see with their own eyes. Brilliant, really. A years-old doctor's note hardly compares.

I understand why you must cling to your incorrect conclusions about the bathmat print, but you'll never ever be able to discredit the court's findings (and obvious truth about) Sollecito's footprit on the bathmat in a mixture of water and the victim's blood.

Everytime you go around the track you keep hitting this (and other) walls.

 

[Katody Matrass]

Very long exposures are necessary to record luminal reactions so a stand is necessary. There was a discussion of the camera stand used but I don't recall what was said. The stand is visible in some of the later crime scene videos. The lack of a remote shutter release could account for some of the shakiness.

Thanks for the answer Dan O. I bet it was disputed to death before

Looking like e.g. this photo is blurred in one direction I assumed it was taken with a hand held camera.

The point is any measurements applied to such a blurred photo will be quite imprecise.

 

[christianahannah]

Christianahannah,

I agree with Katy_did. Massei might have simply said words to the effect, “I take Dr. Stefanoni’s views over Dr. Tagliabracci’s.” Yet he did not. He specifically points out that profiles used to consist of only six loci, and also that the number of undisputed loci is greater than the disputed loci. If he did not intend those facts to be construed as a portion of his reason, then there was no point in mentioning them.

Good morning Chris.

Massei mentions many things which are interpreted in a way compatible to whomever is reading the motivations (in other words, I think bias sometimes plays a part in one's understanding). His wording is not simple, and he takes the long way rather than the short way to explain his reasoning. He simply could have stated "Amanda and Raffaele are guilty" and we would have no 400 pages of reasoning to discuss and dissect.

When I read the passage to which you and katy_did refer I come away with a different interpretation and that interpretation doesn't include Massei inferring that if one of the six loci is incompatible with Raffaele's profile it doesn't matter because the majority are compatible.

 

[christianahannah]

Thanks for the answer Dan O. I bet it was disputed to death before

Looking like e.g. this photo is blurred in one direction I assumed it was taken with a hand held camera.

The point is any measurements applied to such a blurred photo will be quite imprecise.

Hello Katody Matrass.

The Massei Motivations states that a camera tripod was used and goes on at some length to explain the process of photographing the luminol prints (page 345 - The photos were then taken using a tripod, in order to ensure a stable support for the camera.). The discussion of photographing the prints begins on page 344.

I am not sure the reason for blurriness (I think there was some discussion prior to a possibility of clean floor tile and then walking on later with bare feet). I don't know if the floor tile, which is not smooth, would have any effect on the print image.

 

[Katody Matrass]

I understand why the court was persuaded by Rinaldi. Superimposing the bathmat print over the sample print taken from Sollecito to demonstrate visually the match compared to the same demonstration with Guede's known sample print which showed that it didn't match is very powerful.

Were such a superimposition presented in court? Could you post it here if you have access to it?

I watched the avilable Rinaldi's presentations and it's funny how he avoids superimposing the reference footprints with the bathmat exactly because it would show how much better Rudy's foot fits the print

 

[christianahannah]

Was the rock in F's room ever swiped for dna? Handling such an item must surely have left evidence behind by scraping off skin cells, and even more so if it had actually been tossed. I don't remember anything on this point.

Yes, it was tested and yielded negative results.

Page 193:

During the second search, on the suggestion of the defence’s technical consultant Professor Saverio Potenza, the large rock and two fragments found on the floor of the room were tested, but they yielded negative results.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

A Tale of Two Toes

I'm familiar with your linked references, but not the cranky one.

I understand why the court was persuaded by Rinaldi. Superimposing the bathmat print over the sample print taken from Sollecito to demonstrate visually the match compared to the same demonstration with Guede's known sample print which showed that it didn't match is very powerful. The matching measurements between the bathmat print and Sollecito's own, and the no-match with Guede's served to confirm what jurors could see with their own eyes. Brilliant, really. A years-old doctor's note hardly compares.

I understand why you must cling to your incorrect conclusions about the bathmat print, but you'll never ever be able to discredit the court's findings (and obvious truth about) Sollecito's footprit on the bathmat in a mixture of water and the victim's blood.

Everytime you go around the track you keep hitting this (and other) walls.

Bucketoftea,

Please explain why you discount Dr. Vinci's testimony, who ruled out Sollecito but not Guede as the maker of the print. While you are at it, please explain how Sollecito's, not Guede's, second toe made the mark next to the big toe. Guede's second toe is longer than his big toe.

 

[Katody Matrass]

I am not sure the reason for blurriness (I think there was some discussion prior to a possibility of clean floor tile and then walking on later with bare feet). I don't know if the floor tile, which is not smooth, would have any effect on the print image.

Hi, christianahannah, thanks for the reference.
there's no doubt the blur in the linked above photo is a result of camera movement. You can see how every light spot is blurred in the same direction and for the same length. I can agree that it's possible that the camera was shaken while on the stand.

 

[christianahannah]

Hi, christianahannah, thanks for the reference.
there's no doubt the blur in the linked above photo is a result of camera movement. You can see how every light spot is blurred in the same direction and for the same length. I can agree that it's possible that the camera was shaken while on the stand.

Do you have reference where this blur was discussed in court (by either the defense or prosecution) and what the conclusions of each were? I would be interested in knowing what explanations were given.

 

[Supernaut]

We can both choose who to believe, and I agree with that. But I disagree with Supernaut's claims that I am somehow forced to believe some accounts of her behavior over others, otherwise I'm some sort of devil incarnate. There have been both negative things and positive things said about her. In particular to the underwear, I know why she was buying them. But what is most remarkable is the "wild sex" comment the shopkeeper heard (you can choose to disbelieve him, I choose to believe him) along with the pictures of their expressions (looked pretty carefree to me).

I understand your claim about confirmation from Matthew, but along with Supernaut's claim that any witnesses who said anything bad must have been "coached", this whole narrative you guys are trying to paint about all these witnesses, interviewees, cops, interrogators, prosecutors, and god knows who else lying or being utterly mistaken is starting to seem pretty unbelievable. Like I said, this must be some conspiracy of cosmic proportions to assume all these people hate and despise an innocent, saintly demure Amanda Knox...

This kind of argumentation reminds me, as someone once said, of trying to nail jelly to the wall.

I did not ask for "accounts of her [Amanda's] behaviour" or testimony from trial witnesses like Sophie and Robyn. They did NOT socialise with Amanda and did NOT know her, they were simply wheeled on to give us few snippets of young-women's gossip for Miginini to riff on with his insane innuendos.

Having said that, I have been following the discussion about DNA and stomach contents, and I think that those are much more relevant than her sexual past or stupid comments in high school.

But nonethless, your posts consist almost entirely of your "character analysis" of Amanda which you've made on the basis of... what was it again?

Oh yes - nothing but hearsay, apparently.

Unless (for the nth time) you can;

show us a verifiable source for a statement or testimony from someone who actually knows or is acquainted with her in which the "many negatives in Amanda's character" that you "discern" are even hinted at?

How about you start with this "Matthew"?

 

[Dan O.]

Thanks for the answer Dan O. I bet it was disputed to death before

Looking like e.g. this photo is blurred in one direction I assumed it was taken with a hand held camera.

The point is any measurements applied to such a blurred photo will be quite imprecise.

There is a definite streakiness in that photo. At first I thought this was due to the print being wiped with a cloth or mop. But closer examination shows a uniform streaking across the whole image. The bright spot on the top left of each streak is where the camera was stable for most of the exposure. That the rest of the streak is disconnected from the bright head is also a strong indicator that this is not physical streaking of the print. My guess is that the camera was bumped after the exposure was started and the streak down and right of the bright head shows the vibration of the camera/stand.

The blurriness (size of each spot) is not the result of camera shaking or bad focus since these spots are not of uniform size (look at the faint streaks outside the main image). This I would attribute to over application of luminal.

The uniform streaking can be easily compensated for. The blurring is more problematic.

 

[Machiavelli]

I always listen. I don't always agree, especially if the arguments people make are fallacious or their factual claims provably wrong. People who have more faith in their arguments than is warranted have often in the past had great difficulty understanding this distinction

.

People don't have to bring arguments to you about their interests in life, likes and dislikes. This is what I said from the very begining. You lack a very basic form of intellectual respect towards what is out from your sphere of knowledge.

 

[bucketoftea]

Were such a superimposition presented in court? Could you post it here if you have access to it?

I watched the avilable Rinaldi's presentations and it's funny how he avoids superimposing the reference footprints with the bathmat exactly because it would show how much better Rudy's foot fits the print

I'm curious as to your interpretation of how Rinaldi presented the overlaying of images. How did you arrive at this? It was in fact the defense who declined to compare the prints in this way.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

the bathmat and the print in the hallway

But how did Guede manage to leave a footprint that was shown to match Raffaele's by mm accurate measurements and not his own foot? How is that done? How did he leave Amanda's DNA in the bloody traces?

vucketoftea,

Here is a summary of Dr. Vinci's testimony about the bathmat footprint and the luminol footprint, the one the prosecution attributed to Raffaele:

"According to Vinci the part of Raffaele's hallux believed to be missing (yellow circle) was added by the police experts on the carpet footprint (on the yellow line) thinking that it could be the continuation of the blood spot above (red circle). Which instead he thinks to be, as we have seen, the second toe. The only other readable part of the carpet footprint, for Vinci, is the upper right part of the metacarpus, below the big toe. It's just a small region, but he sees it as coincident with Rudi's print. All the rest is either missing or not defined enough. With such limited elements Vinci is only able to rule out Raffaele (or the girls) and to say that the print is compatible with Rudi. And we can only admire his honesty and consistency. By the way, Vinci didn't manage to convince the prosecution about his second-toe theory. Prosecutor Comodi, supported by her feet consultant, offered her usual irony about that. We will come to know soon if he convinced the judges, which is what really counts. For the luminol footprint, attributed to Raffale, Vinci was clear: the only thing we can say for sure is that is a human footprint. But it can't be attributed to anyone."

Both of the flat assertions you have made with respect to footprints are disputed, at best. And as Katody reminded you, Dr. Vinci has a better track record in this case.

 

[Brooktrout]

From this morning's trial news

From this morning's AP report on Amanda Knox's appearance at court this morning for the slander charges:

[SNIP] Of the 12 police officials listed on the official request for trial, only eight decided to go forward with civil and criminal charges. Two detectives and two interpreters originally listed on the request have dropped out of the case, which Judge Claudia Matteini decided Friday will be argued on Nov. 8. [SNIP]

Hmmm. How many interpreters were there in total, during the whole night's events?

 

[Dan O.]

From this morning's AP report on Amanda Knox's appearance at court this morning for the slander charges:

[SNIP] Of the 12 police officials listed on the official request for trial, only eight decided to go forward with civil and criminal charges. Two detectives and two interpreters originally listed on the request have dropped out of the case, which Judge Claudia Matteini decided Friday will be argued on Nov. 8. [SNIP]

This could be exciting.

 

[Justinian2]

LJ, if it's such a smoking gun, why do you think Amanda's appeal summary, as written by Bruce, doesn't even touch on this subject? There appears to be something made of each aspect of the trial, witnesses and evidence, but unless I simply missed it no mention is made of the stomach contents and it's ability to prove their innocence. Raffaele's does mention it on the other hand.

I guess I'll know it when I see it Kevin. I will happily feel relief and gladness for Amanda and Raffaele if something turns up to unequivocally exonerate them and I will wholeheartedly support their being compensated for their lost years. I don’t hate them and I’m open to changing my mind if something conclusive comes along. So far it hasn’t.

Your argument on stomach contents proving she died at 9:10 or very shortly before or after doesn’t convince me either because it seems too narrow in focus and unsupported by the majority of the literature out there regardless of how many times you shout about it being peer reviewed and post your two or three links. What makes your links and opinions any better than all the other opinions and links by numerous other people, also published in scientific journals, who warn over and over about using stomach contents as reliable proof of anything. Your links are few among many. And now, before you go all snaky again on the t-lag stuff and tell me we just don’t understand while you are the veritable font of knowledge, why don’t you read a couple of these other articles. It seems like you want to believe the argument you’ve created so badly you only look to your couple of abstracts and refuse to glance at differing opinions. You shout, you insult and you seem hell-bent on proving something even the defense barely touches on. Why isn’t Amanda’s defense using the stomach content argument to prove Meredith was already dead while they sat home and watched Naruto? In Bruce’s summary of her appeal it’s not even mentioned. You've already accused her lawyers of guessing their information and not doing the math so I presume you think they're simply unintelligent and incompetent.
[...]

There's no valid evidence.
There's a valid alibi.

The alibi should not be needed with the total absence of valid evidence that proves guilt. The alibi is the frosting on the cake; the cherry on the ice cream. It's not necessary for a finding of innocence. However, the fact that there is also a valid alibi in addition to a total lack of valid evidence makes this conclusive.

What's valid evidence? It's something nobody disputes. There's no evaluation of the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. (Article 192 c.p.p. paragraph 1 and 533, paragraph 1)


In accordance with Italian law, evidence presented by the prosecution must be certain and unique, and not be contradictory and illogical. There are facts that can be inferred from clues leading to reasonable doubt, especially when logically reconstructing circumstantial evidence.

 

[bucketoftea]

vucketoftea,

Here is a summary of Dr. Vinci's testimony about the bathmat footprint and the luminol footprint, the one the prosecution attributed to Raffaele:

"According to Vinci the part of Raffaele's hallux believed to be missing (yellow circle) was added by the police experts on the carpet footprint (on the yellow line) thinking that it could be the continuation of the blood spot above (red circle). Which instead he thinks to be, as we have seen, the second toe. The only other readable part of the carpet footprint, for Vinci, is the upper right part of the metacarpus, below the big toe. It's just a small region, but he sees it as coincident with Rudi's print. All the rest is either missing or not defined enough. With such limited elements Vinci is only able to rule out Raffaele (or the girls) and to say that the print is compatible with Rudi. And we can only admire his honesty and consistency. By the way, Vinci didn't manage to convince the prosecution about his second-toe theory. Prosecutor Comodi, supported by her feet consultant, offered her usual irony about that. We will come to know soon if he convinced the judges, which is what really counts. For the luminol footprint, attributed to Raffale, Vinci was clear: the only thing we can say for sure is that is a human footprint. But it can't be attributed to anyone."

Both of the flat assertions you have made with respect to footprints are disputed, at best. And as Katody reminded you, Dr. Vinci has a better track record in this case.

Rinaldi was more convincing to me and to the jurors. And I was talking about the bathmat print, not the luminol evidence. At best the defense can only dispute unconvincingly.